A meta-analysis of randomized trials on clinical outcomes of paclitaxel-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients

Chinese Herbal Medicines Might Improve the Long-Term Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Results of a Decision-Analytic Markov Model

Aims. The priority of Chinese herbal medicines (CHMs) plus conventional treatment over conventional treatment alone for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was documented in the 5C trial (chictr.org number: ChiCTR-TRC-07000021). The study was designed to evaluate the 10-year effectiveness of CHMs plus conventional treatment versus conventional treatment alone with decision-analytic model for ACS after PCI. Methods and Results. We constructed a decision-analytic Markov model to compare additional CHMs for 6 months plus conventional treatment versus conventional treatment alone for ACS patients after PCI. Sources of data came from 5C trial and published reports. Outcomes were expressed in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model. The model predicted that over the 10-year horizon the survival probability was 77.49% in patients with CHMs plus conventional treatment versus 77.29% in patients with conventional treatment alone. In combination with conventional treatment, 6-month CHMs might be associated with a gained 0.20% survival probability and 0.111 accumulated QALYs, respectively. Conclusions. The model suggested that treatment with CHMs, as an adjunctive therapy, in combination with conventional treatment for 6 months might improve the long-term clinical outcome in ACS patients after PCI.

Outcomes with various drug-eluting or bare metal stents in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: a mixed treatment comparison analysis of trial level data from 34 068 patient-years of follow-up from randomized trials

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is controversial. Consequently, DES implantation has a class IIa indication in the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the European Society of Cardiology STEMI guidelines.

METHODS AND RESULTS

PUBMED, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched for randomized clinical trials, until March 2013, comparing any of the 5 Food and Drug Administration-approved durable stent and polymer DES (sirolimus eluting stent, paclitaxel eluting stent, everolimus-eluting stent [EES], zotarolimus-eluting stent, and zotarolimus-eluting stent resolute), against each other or bare metal stents (BMS), and enrolling ≥ 50 patients with STEMI. Efficacy (target vessel revascularization) and safety (death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis) outcomes at the longest reported follow-up times were evaluated. Twenty-eight randomized clinical trials with 34 068 patient-years of follow-up on subjects with STEMI fulfilled the inclusion criteria. When compared with BMS (reference rate ratio [RR] of 1), sirolimus eluting stent (RR, 0.46; 95% credibility interval [CrI], 0.36-0.56), paclitaxel eluting stent (RR, 0.69; 95% CrI, 0.53-0.87), and EES (RR, 0.42; 95% CrI, 0.26-0.62) were associated with a statistically significant reduction in rate of target vessel revascularization, with the point estimate for zotarolimus-eluting stent resolute trending in a similar direction. There was no increase in the risk of death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis with any DES compared with BMS. Moreover, EES was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the rate of stent thrombosis when compared with sirolimus eluting stent (RR, 0.38; 95% CrI, 0.21-0.74), paclitaxel eluting stent (RR, 0.39; 95% CrI, 0.21-0.73), and even BMS (RR, 0.42; 95% CrI, 0.23-0.76). There was a 74% probability that EES had the lowest rate of any stent thrombosis when compared with all other stent types (no data on zotarolimus-eluting stent resolute). There was no increase in very late stent thrombosis with EES versus BMS (RR, 0.89; 95% CrI, 0.09-8.67).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with STEMI, DES versus BMS was associated with substantial decrease in the risk of target vessel revascularization without compromising safety. EES had the added advantage of substantial reduction in the risk of stent thrombosis when compared with first-generation DES and BMS with no increase in very late stent thrombosis.

Mid-term clinical outcomes of ACS and non-ACS patients treated with everolimus-eluting stents

Drug-eluting stents (DES) have proven to be effective for reducing the rate of restenosis, whereas stent thrombosis (ST) after DES implantation has raised safety concerns. Everolimus-eluting stents (EES) are a new generation of DES that have demonstrated safety and efficacy compared with first-generation DES. However, the use of EES in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) has not been adequately investigated. We compared the clinical outcomes between the ACS and non-ACS groups treated with EES. A total of 335 consecutive patients who received EES implantation between January 2010 and January 2011 were investigated (ACS; n = 172, non-ACS; n = 163). Clinical outcome data were obtained for 94.3% of the patients. Follow-up angiography was performed in 58.5% of all patients. The median follow-up period was 8 months in both groups. Clinical outcomes were not statistically different between the groups. The rate of target lesion revascularization (TLR) was 2.5% in the ACS group and 3.8% in the non-ACS group (P = 0.37). MACE occurred in 8.2% of the ACS group and 10.2% of the non-ACS group (P = 0.54). A definite ST was identified in one patient in each group (P = 0.75). The unadjusted cumulative event rates estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test showed no significant difference between the groups for TLR, target vessel revascularization (TVR), all-cause death, or MACE. In conclusion, EES was safe and efficacious for patients presenting with ACS, as well as for those with non-ACS during a mid-term follow-up period.